home

New Report on Denying Benefits to Drug Offenders

By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Tue Sep 27, 2005 at 11:15:15 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Students for a Sensible Drug Policy (via e-mail):

The GAO put out a report yesterday looking at the numerous ways people convicted on drug charges lose federal benefits. Of particular note is that they state that denying financial aid to students with drug convictions not only hurts the determined students themselves, but makes our streets less safe by increasing crime and hampers America's economic productivity by reducing earnings and driving up spending on other social programs.

The full GAO report is available here (pdf). Denying financial aid to students because of a drug conviction is a stupid policy and fiscally irresponsible.

People coming out of prison are much less likely to return to illegal activities, including drug use, if they enter higher education. According to the Correctional Education Association, only 10 percent of prisoners who receive at least two years of higher education are arrested again, compared with a general rearrest rate of about 60 percent. Blocking education to ex-offenders only condemns them to lives without the financial opportunities made possible by college degrees and makes them more likely to repeat bad choices made in the past.

Public policies should encourage people who have been in trouble with drugs to move beyond their past mistakes, but the drug provision endangers their chances of becoming productive citizens. Graduating more students from college means greater economic productivity and increased tax revenue, while locking up more inmates means taxpayers must pay the bill for skyrocketing criminal justice costs. Blocking education for determined students is fiscally irresponsible.

< On Being a Better 'Conserver' | Reports: DeLays Lawyers Are Concerned About Indictment >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    New Report on Denying Benefits to Drug Offenders | 10 comments (10 topical)
    Re: New Report on Denying Benefits to Drug Offende (none / 0) (#1)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:23 PM EST
    This is one classic example of the type of "liberalism" that America endured under that "left" wing psycho Clinton. I really cannot believe more wrong wingers do not endorse Clinton, he was really your kind of guy after all... That whole welfare-to-work thing, this whole "do a joint, don't go to school thing"...

    Re: New Report on Denying Benefits to Drug Offende (none / 0) (#2)
    by SeeEmDee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:24 PM EST
    Johnny, both parties have been guilty of one-upmanship in ratcheting up the penalties for possession these past 20 years...all under the rubric of (dripping with irony) 'saving the children', of course. FDR may have started it with signing cannabis prohibition into law, but every resident in the White House since then bears some blame, especially Tricky Dick for really ramping things up with the formation of the DEA. Ronnie Ray-gun and his crew only embellished things - while his man Ollie North was consorting with coke-peddling Contras in Central America. As far as Clinton is concerned, he showed either supreme cluelessness or a bottomless capacity for mendacity when he said at the end of his last term that he thought the states had decriminalized it (after presiding over a huge increase of cannabis arrests on his watch). Tell that to all those whose lives have been forever ruined for possessing something that's not killed anybody in 5,000 years of recorded human history. I expect most Republicans to be congenitally shutter-brained on this issue, but I also expect Dems to be a bit more open minded. Neither party has been terribly smart about the matter, and we all pay for this willful ignorance and stupidity with our tax dollars.

    Re: New Report on Denying Benefits to Drug Offende (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:24 PM EST
    So, the people who allocate dollars are supposed to just ignore self destructive behavior - the sort that is highly likely to lead to a lack of college level success? I don't like the drug war - I think it's taking huge bites out of civil liberties, and it's counterproductive even at it's stated goals. However, I also don't like the idea of utter non-judgementalism when it comes to spending money.

    Re: New Report on Denying Benefits to Drug Offende (none / 0) (#4)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:24 PM EST
    JR, if the policy didn't unfairly target those who cannot afford colege any other way, I may have supported it. As it stands, it only penalizes 'self destructive behaviour" in poorer people. I move that we suspend the "drug war" OR, deny admission to college, public and private to anyone who has a criminal record of any kind. Including speeding tickets (self destructive behaviour), jaywalking (potentially lethal pedestrian activity), DWI (Sorry dubya, no ivy league for you)... He!!, lets extend it to the obese (totally self destructive, albeit legal behaviour), smokers (nuff said), alkies, bulemics, anorexics, cutters, people who listen to their music at damaging levels, people who never exercise, people who work so much they never see their children (not self destructive, but even worse-harming the CHILDREN)... The list of people who would disqualify for "self destructive behaviour" can go on and on and on... And yes, all of those I listed could be of the type that potentially leads to failure at college level. But hell, if a coke head alkie like Bushie can make it through an Ivy League... SeeEmDee, I wasn't being sarcastic about Clinton, I really am surprised more wrong wingers didn't like him. The only thing I can conceive is that he wore a donkey instead of an elephant.

    Re: New Report on Denying Benefits to Drug Offende (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:24 PM EST
    So, the people who allocate dollars are supposed to just ignore self destructive behavior
    So why aren't binge drinkers denied financial aid? Or underage drinkers? Besides, marijuana use is not self destructive, marijuana abuse is. Just the same as cupcake use is not self destructive, cupcake abuse is.

    Re: New Report on Denying Benefits to Drug Offende (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:24 PM EST
    Beat me to it Johnny...well said.

    Re: New Report on Denying Benefits to Drug Offende (none / 0) (#7)
    by SeeEmDee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:24 PM EST
    The truly galling thing about Souder's Law is best summed up this way? Are you a convicted murderer? (game show bell chime) You can be a recipient of school loans. Are you a convicted rapist? Yes? (bell chime) Good to go. Convicted child molestor? Yes? (chime) Okay. Next contestant... Convicted of any drug possession? (Harsh wrong answer buzzer) Screw you, Charlie! Souder's Law is inclusive of drug convictions only. The HEW application doesn't ask about actual crimes, only the concensual one of drug possession. yet, of all the offenses listed above, the last is the only one punished in this regard. It's lamebrained author, Rep. Mark Souder (R), claims now that that was not his intent, but the reality is that that is precisely what he intended, and delivered.

    Re: New Report on Denying Benefits to Drug Offende (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:24 PM EST
    While I totally agree with the thesis that this provision is unproductive and probably damaging. As far as I can tell the GAO report actually says they couldn't determine either whether it had a deterent effect nor could they establish a direct link from denial of benefits to not attaining a higher education. Personally, I'm sure there is one. But unless I'm missing something, the GAO bunted.

    Re: New Report on Denying Benefits to Drug Offende (none / 0) (#9)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:24 PM EST
    So, the people who allocate dollars are supposed to just ignore self destructive behavior
    So we punish "self destructive" behavior by being more destructive? That doesnt make any sense.

    Re: New Report on Denying Benefits to Drug Offende (none / 0) (#10)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:25 PM EST
    Johnny, if I recall correctly, the Clinton administration did not enforce this law with any vigor. That changed under Bush.

    New Report on Denying Benefits to Drug Offenders | 10 comments (10 topical)